OT:Sandusky labeled 'likely pedophile' in 1998 report

[RS9999X]

The hole just gets deeper

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/46843...e/t/sandusky-labeled-likely-pedophile-report/

 

[huskypantz]

The hole just gets deeper

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/46843...e/t/sandusky-labeled-likely-pedophile-report/

"Paterno testified last year he was unaware of the 1998 investigation".

The assistant football coach was charged with a crime in JoePa's little podunk college town and he never heard about it? Really? This is the crap that makes PSU look foolish nationally. Just reading their board and comments posted by PSU fans on national articles, it seems like most are living in a dream world. They also spend more time worrying about how JoePa was wronged by the PSU board of directors than the lack of action that resulted in those horrific acts.

 

[Adios]

"Paterno testified last year he was unaware of the 1998 investigation".

The assistant football coach was charged with a crime in JoePa's little podunk college town and he never heard about it? Really? This is the crap that makes PSU look foolish nationally. Just reading their board and comments posted by PSU fans on national articles, it seems like most are living in a dream world. They also spend more time worrying about how JoePa was wronged by the PSU board of directors than the lack of action that resulted in those horrific acts.

Spectator sports is usually a very, very, very dirty world.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

Haven't we beaten this dead horse enough? We've all discussed the timeline of events, what people did or did not know, and what they did or did not do.

Enough already.

 

[huskypantz]

Haven't we beaten this dead horse enough? We've all discussed the timeline of events, what people did or did not know, and what they did or did not do.

Enough already.

You have the option of not reading the thread. In communist Soviet Union, it would be required reading but only after the government censors had modified the content to their liking.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

You have the option of not reading the thread. In communist Soviet Union, it would be required reading but only after the government censors had modified the content to their liking.

Oh please. Telling people not to post in a thread they find useless and rehashed is much more Soviet style, comrade.

We know about the '98 incident because a sting was set up by the cops. Do we need a shrink to tell us that Sandusky had the markings of a pedophile when he all but admitted it back then?

Hey, if you want to run through this exercise in futility, have at it.

 

[upstater]

"Paterno testified last year he was unaware of the 1998 investigation".

The assistant football coach was charged with a crime in JoePa's little podunk college town and he never heard about it? Really? This is the crap that makes PSU look foolish nationally. Just reading their board and comments posted by PSU fans on national articles, it seems like most are living in a dream world. They also spend more time worrying about how JoePa was wronged by the PSU board of directors than the lack of action that resulted in those horrific acts.

While I think Paterno definitely knew, Sandusky was never charged with anything. That's the whole point of this story. In 1998, it as reported to the state, he was psychologically evaluated, the DA ran a sting operation, children's services were involved, etc. And he wasn't charged nor even watched. And, by the way, Paterno never testified at all about the 1998 investigation. He was never asked about it at all. The entire transcript is available for anyone to read. That is something that someone else said about Paterno outside the court room.

The only new information here is why the state child welfare officer wasn't aware of the second psychological write-up. That could be a smoking gun, right there. It was a 100 page report on the shower incident with the psychologist, DA and child services agreeing that Sandusky had done nothing wrong. But apparently this document from another psych was also in the file? And child services didn't see it? This is incredibly hard to believe. I can only think that the child services guy did see it and chose to go with the first psych's recommendation, or that he somehow didn't do his job and read the whole file, or that it was deliberately withheld from him.

 

[CAPS]

Does Randy figure into this thread some how?

 

[uconndogs]

The details in something like this always get daunting in their complexity. But, I simply come back to this. At some point were JoePa and PSU not as diligent as they could have been because they wished to protect the image of their football program? I continually come up with "YES". They had to suspect that their inaction was potentially putting children in harms way.

I understand there is an enormous legal issue here for PSU. But, to my mind, at its core, this is a moral and ethical issue that will hang over PSU and many of those involved for a lifetime.

 

[huskypantz]

Oh please. Telling people not to post in a thread they find useless and rehashed is much more Soviet style, comrade.

We know about the '98 incident because a sting was set up by the cops. Do we need a shrink to tell us that Sandusky had the markings of a pedophile when he all but admitted it back then?

Hey, if you want to run through this exercise in futility, have at it.

Not sure where you read anything about someone telling you not to post in this thread. You obviously have an interest in the thread because you're posting in it and offering your opinion on whether the information is new, rehashed or irrelevant.

 

[HuskyDogArt]

Haven't we beaten this dead horse enough? We've all discussed the timeline of events, what people did or did not know, and what they did or did not do.

Enough already.

<p>I have to agree with you... ENOUGH!!! JoePa reported it when he first heard about to the CAMPUS POLICE. What JoePa is guilty of is not following through after he reported it.

 

[uconndogs]

JoePa is guilty of putting his football program above the best interest of children who were put in harms way as a result.

Was he a great man? I believe so. But, like the rest of us, he was a flawed human being and made mistakes.

 

[upstater]

JoePa is guilty of putting his football program above the best interest of children who were put in harms way as a result.

Was he a great man? I believe so. But, like the rest of us, he was a flawed human being and made mistakes.

This only makes sense though if you ignore the reaction to 1998 where they informed police, the DA, child services, and even had psychological write-ups. Back then, Sandusky was still a part of PSU football, and presumably they had even more to lose, and yet all these professionals were brought into the matter.

I tend to think that the ball being dropped by professionals in 1998 contributed to the laissez-faire attitude in 2002. For that Paterno and everyone else deserves blame. But I'm pretty sure the culprit is McQueary for not explaining in detail what he saw. And I'm also pretty certain the two PSU administrators will get off on the perjury charges simply because there's enough evidence showing McQueary was all over the place on his testimony. Paterno was the only wildcard when it came to testifying as to what McQueary said, but now Paterno is not around.

 

[uconndogs]

Upstater - You appear to be up on the facts and details here and certainly much more so than myself. Again, I will simply ask the question that at any time did JoePa and other high ranking PSU officials put the interests of their beloved football program above the interests of children? All indications are that they did. There are legal issues here that are enormous for PSU and the details behind all this will be critical in what is determined in the law.

But, to me, that pales in comparison to the enormous moral and ethical breakdown that put winning foobtall games above the safety of children. What in our society and, more specifically, in big time college sports, accounts for such behavior...that's rhetorical btw.

 

[upstater]

Upstater - You appear to be up on the facts and details here and certainly much more so than myself. Again, I will simply ask the question that at any time did JoePa and other high ranking PSU officials put the interests of their beloved football program above the interests of children? All indications are that they did. There are legal issues here that are enormous for PSU and the details behind all this will be critical in what is determined in the law.

But, to me, that pales in comparison to the enormous moral and ethical breakdown that put winning foobtall games above the safety of children. What in our society and, more specifically, in big time college sports, accounts for such behavior...that's rhetorical btw.

My earlier post already addressed this. When Sandusky was still a coach, his actions were reported to all authorities, from police, to DA, to agents, child welfare of the state, psychologists. In 1998 you can say they did not put the football program above the welfare of the children. You can make the case they put football above the welfare of children in 2002, but at the very least you'll have to explain to me why/how 2002 differed from 1998 when they reported, especially since Sandusky was no longer coach. Absent a good explanation, this is why I tend to think 2002 was a royal screw-up rather than a conspiracy.

 

[uconnfan68]

My earlier post already addressed this. When Sandusky was still a coach, his actions were reported to all authorities, from police, to DA, to agents, child welfare of the state, psychologists. In 1998 you can say they did not put the football program above the welfare of the children. You can make the case they put football above the welfare of children in 2002, but at the very least you'll have to explain to me why/how 2002 differed from 1998 when they reported, especially since Sandusky was no longer coach. Absent a good explanation, this is why I tend to think 2002 was a royal screw-up rather than a conspiracy.

Sounds like 1998 was the conspiracy.

 

[upstater]

Sounds like 1998 was the conspiracy.

How so?

 

[uconnfan68]

How so?

When Sandusky was still a coach, his actions were reported to all authorities, from police, to DA, to agents, child welfare of the state, psychologists. In 1998 you can say they did not put the football program above the welfare of the children.
Yet nothing was done.

 

[upstater]

When Sandusky was still a coach, his actions were reported to all authorities, from police, to DA, to agents, child welfare of the state, psychologists. In 1998 you can say they did not put the football program above the welfare of the children.
Yet nothing was done.

That was the DA's call and child services. They even had a sting operation in play. You think the whole state of PA was in on it? Two of the people making those decisions were not even local. The psychologist who interviewed the child was from the eastern part of the state and the child services guy was from the capital in Harrisburg.

I am open to hearing there may have been conspiracies involved simply because this is a hot potato case with prominent politicos having knowledge as well as a huge non-profit (the Second Mile) with political ties as well. But there is nothing there yet that would have you say they conspired. The first psychologist was actually the child's therapist prior to the shower incident.

There's a poster on the PSU BWI board who has been there for as long as I can remember, over a decade, and he's kept the same user name, Shrink. He's a State College who knows all the evaluators on a personal and professional level, and thinks they all did a good job even if they disagreed. The kid's therapist is known to report these incidents to the state at a much higher rate than others, but he thinks she's really good. As background, the most prominent and well regarded psychotherapist in State College lost his license in 1998 for deciding not to report a case that turned out to be child abuse.

 

[uconnfan68]

That was the DA's call and child services. They even had a sting operation in play. You think the whole state of PA was in on it? Two of the people making those decisions were not even local. The psychologist who interviewed the child was from the eastern part of the state and the child services guy was from the capital in Harrisburg.

I am open to hearing there may have been conspiracies involved simply because this is a hot potato case with prominent politicos having knowledge as well as a huge non-profit (the Second Mile) with political ties as well. But there is nothing there yet that would have you say they conspired. The first psychologist was actually the child's therapist prior to the shower incident.

There's a poster on the PSU BWI board who has been there for as long as I can remember, over a decade, and he's kept the same user name, Shrink. He's a State College who knows all the evaluators on a personal and professional level, and thinks they all did a good job even if they disagreed. The kid's therapist is known to report these incidents to the state at a much higher rate than others, but he thinks she's really good. As background, the most prominent and well regarded psychotherapist in State College lost his license in 1998 for deciding not to report a case that turned out to be child abuse.

oops, looks like they all screwed up... what happened to erring on the side of the children?

 

[Fishy]

How so?

You are an educated person - hell, you are even in education.

This makes me wonder why you are incapable of learning to just ignore these Sandusky threads which are designed to do absolutely nothing but get you to rise to the bait. Every time something comes up about this dude, someone will throw it out here hoping that the Penn Stater will rise to the surface so everyone can beat him with a stick.

And you do it every single time. If my elementary school aged daughter showed a similar inability to learn, we would have had her tested by now.

Just let it go.

 

[upstater]

You are an educated person - hell, you are even in education.

This makes me wonder why you are incapable of learning to just ignore these Sandusky threads which are designed to do absolutely nothing but get you to rise to the bait. Every time something comes up about this dude, someone will throw it out here hoping that the Penn Stater will rise to the surface so everyone can beat him with a stick.

And you do it every single time. If my elementary school aged daughter showed a similar inability to learn, we would have had her tested by now.

Just let it go.

Are you imagining that this is some pissing contest? It's not. My ire didn't rise a single bit, nor am I in disagreement with anyone. In fact, this was totally new information about the psychologist that just came out last week. I'm largely in agreement with the vast majority of people about the matter, and always have been.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

The biggest sin in my mind is allowing Sandusky to remain on campus up until 6 months ago.

 

[UCONNfan1]

i'll tell ya what - i'm tired of hearing the people continue to heap praise on JoPa and defend him like he's the pope. i'm glad the guy is getting raked over the coals and hopefully the holier than thou PSU fans will start to get it thru their heads that not only was Sandusky slime, but JoPa was culpable for knowing the guy was slime.

 

[Husky68]

2002 proved 1998 was a poor investigation and those involved at both times knew it. What kind of outreach to other potential victims was there in 1998, stays with charity and they aren't advised (this type of thing can be kept quiet - doubt it), PSU fires/retires him and lets him bring kids around campus, no action on one psych report in 1998 = all would look bad in 2002 as it does now. PSU was covering in 2002 to hide the 1998 and prior crimes that are coming to light. One thing politicians/educators know is that delay in facing your crimes makes it harder to link you to events. Fuzzy memories, people die, evidence harder to find, etc. The whole PSU crew and local officials will get found out starting with the ex President and his "make PSU the most homosexual friendly campus" regime on down. PSU and locals not directly involved need to look at why they just let the "ice cream" jokes, etc. pass them by.